[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7697-H7699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE UNITED NATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, over a half a century has transpired since the 
United States of America became a member of the United Nations. 
Purporting to act pursuant to the treaty powers of the Constitution, 
the President of the United States signed, and the United States Senate 
ratified, the charter of the United Nations. Yet, the debate in 
government circles over the United Nations' charter scarcely has 
touched on the question of the constitutional power of the United 
States to enter such an agreement. Instead, the only questions 
addressed concerned the respective roles that the President and 
Congress would assume upon the implementation of that charter.
  On the one hand, some proposed that once the charter of the United 
States was ratified, the President of the United States would act 
independently of Congress pursuant to his executive prerogatives to 
conduct the foreign affairs of the Nation. Others insisted, however, 
that the Congress played a major role of defining foreign policy, 
especially because that policy implicated the power to declare war, a 
subject reserved strictly to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  At first, it appeared that Congress would take control of America's 
participation in the United Nations. But in the enactment of the United 
Nations' participation act on December 20, 1945, Congress laid down 
several rules by which America's participation would be governed. Among 
those rules was the requirement that before the President of the United 
States could deploy United States Armed Forces in service of the United 
Nations, he was required to submit to Congress for its specific 
approval the numbers and types of Armed Forces, their degree of 
readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and 
assistance including rights of passage to be made available to the 
United Nations Security Council on its call for the purpose of 
maintaining international peace and security.
  Since the passage of the United Nations Participation Act, however, 
congressional control of presidential foreign policy initiatives, in 
cooperation with the United Nations, has been more theoretical than 
real. Presidents from Truman to the current President have again and 
again presented Congress with already-begun military actions, thus 
forcing Congress's hand to support United States troops or risk the 
accusation of having put the Nation's servicemen and service women in 
unnecessary danger. Instead of seeking congressional approval of the 
use of the United States Armed Forces in service of the United Nations, 
presidents from Truman to Clinton have used the United Nations Security 
Council as a substitute for congressional authorization of the 
deployment of United States Armed Forces in that service.
  This transfer of power from Congress to the United Nations has not, 
however, been limited to the power to make war. Increasingly, 
Presidents are using the U.N. not only to implement foreign policy in 
pursuit of international peace, but also domestic policy in pursuit of 
international, environmental, economic, education, social welfare and 
human rights policy, both in derogation of the legislative prerogatives 
of Congress and of the 50 State legislatures, and further in derogation 
of the rights of the American people to constitute their own civil 
order.
  As Cornell University government professor Jeremy Rabkin has 
observed, although the U.N. charter specifies that none of its 
provisions ``shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters 
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,'' 
nothing has ever been found so ``essentially domestic'' as to exclude 
U.N. intrusions.
  The release in July 2000 of the U.N. Human Development Report 
provides unmistakable evidence of the universality of the United 
Nations' jurisdictional claims. Boldly proclaiming that global 
integration is eroding national borders, the report calls for the 
implementation and, if necessary, the imposition of global standards of 
economic and social justice by international agencies and tribunals. In 
a special contribution endorsing this call for the globalization of 
domestic policymaking, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan 
wrote, ``Above all, we have committed ourselves to the idea that no 
individual shall have his or her human rights abused or ignored. The 
idea is enshrined in the charter of the United Nations. The United 
Nations' achievements in the area of human rights over the last 50 
years are rooted in the universal acceptance of those rights enumerated 
in the Universal Declaration of Rights. Emerging slowly, but I believe, 
surely, is an international norm,'' and this is Annan's words, ``that 
must and will take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty.''
  Although such a wholesale transfer of United States sovereignty to 
the United Nations as envisioned by Secretary General Annan has not yet 
come to pass, it will, unless Congress takes action.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act is 
my answer to this problem.
  To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the 
United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, 
threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by 
the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations' major 
source of funds. America's problems with the United Nations will not, 
however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the 
United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence 
is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and 
irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from 
the United Nation's Charter which--from the beginning--was a threat to 
sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people 
have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, 
by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never 
``made under the Authority of the U.S.,'' as required by Article VI.
  H.R. 1146--The American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 1999 is my 
solution to the continued abuses of the United Nations. The U.S. 
Congress can remedy its earlier unconstitutional action of embracing 
the Charter of the United Nations by enacting H.R. 1146. The U.S. 
Congress, by passing H.R. 1146, and the U.S. president, by signing H.R. 
1146, will heed the wise counsel of our first president, George 
Washington, when he advised his countrymen to ``steer clear of 
permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,'' lest the 
nation's security and liberties be compromised by endless and 
overriding international commitments.

An excerpt from Herbert W. Titus' Constitutional Analysis of the United 
                                Nations

       In considering the recent United Nations meetings and the 
     United States' relation to that organization and its affront 
     to U.S. sovereignty, we would all do well to read carefully 
     Professor Herbert W. Titus' paper on the United Nations of 
     which I have provided this excerpt:
       It is commonly assumed that the Charter of the United 
     Nations is a treaty. It is not. Instead, the Charter of the 
     United Nations is a constitution. As such, it is 
     illegitimate, having created a supranational government, 
     deriving its powers not from the consent of the governed (the 
     people of the United States of America and peoples of other 
     member nations) but from the consent of the peoples' 
     government officials who have no authority to bind either the 
     American people nor any other nation's people to any terms of 
     the Charter of the United Nations.
       By definition, a treaty is a contract between or among 
     independent and sovereign nations, obligatory on the 
     signatories only when made by competent governing authorities 
     in accordance with the powers constitutionally conferred upon 
     them. I Kent, Commentaries on American Law 163 (1826); 
     Burdick, The Law of the American Constitution section 34 
     (1922) Even the United Nations Treaty Collection states that 
     a treaty is (1)

[[Page H7698]]

     a binding instrument creating legal rights and duties (2) 
     concluded by states or international organizations with 
     treaty-making power (3) governed by international law.
       By contrast, a charter is a constitution creating a civil 
     government for a unified nation or nations and establishing 
     the authority of that government. Although the United Nations 
     Treaty Collection defines a ``charter'' as a ``constituent 
     treaty,'' leading international political authorities state 
     that ``[t]he use of the word `Charter' [in reference to the 
     founding document of the United Nations] . . . emphasizes the 
     constitutional nature of this instrument.'' Thus, the 
     preamble to the Charter of the United Nations declares 
     ``that the Peoples of the United Nations have resolved to 
     combine their efforts to accomplish certain aims by 
     certain means.'' The Charter of the United Nations: A 
     Commentary 46 (B. Simma, ed.) (Oxford Univ. Press, NY: 
     1995) (Hereinafter U.N. Charter Commentary). Consistent 
     with this view, leading international legal authorities 
     declare that the law of the Charter of the United Nations 
     which governs the authority of the United Nations General 
     Assembly and the United Nations Security Council is 
     ``similar . . . to national constitutional law,'' 
     proclaiming that ``because of its status as a constitution 
     for the world community,'' the Charter of the United 
     Nations must be construed broadly, making way for 
     ``implied powers'' to carry out the United Nations' 
     ``comprehensive scope of duties, especially the 
     maintenance of international peace and security and its 
     orientation towards international public welfare.'' Id. at 
     27
       The United Nations Treaty Collection confirms the 
     appropriateness of this ``constitutional interpretive'' 
     approach to the Charter of the United Nations with its 
     statement that the charter may be traced ``back to the Magna 
     Carta (the Great Charter) of 1215,'' a national 
     constitutional document. As a constitutional document, the 
     Magna Carta not only bound the original signatories, the 
     English barons and the king, but all subsequent English 
     rulers, including Parliament, conferring upon all Englishmen 
     certain rights that five hundred years later were claimed and 
     exercised by the English people who had colonized America.
       A charter, then, is a covenant of the people and the civil 
     rulers of a nation in perpetuity. Sources of Our Liberties 1-
     10 (R. Perry, ed.) (American Bar Foundation: 1978) As Article 
     1 of Magna Carta, puts it:
       We have granted moreover to all free men of our kingdom for 
     us and our heirs forever all liberties written below, to be 
     had and holden by themselves and their heirs from us and our 
     heirs.
       In like manner, the Charter of the United Nations is 
     considered to be a permanent ``constitution for the universal 
     society,'' and consequently, to be construed in accordance 
     with its broad and unchanging ends but in such a way as to 
     meet changing times and changing relations among the nations 
     and peoples of the world. U.N. Charter Commentary at 28-44.
       According to the American political and legal tradition and 
     the universal principles of constitution making, a perpetual 
     civil covenant or constitution, obligatory on the people and 
     their rulers throughout the generations, must, first, be 
     proposed in the name of the people and, thereafter, ratified 
     by the people's representatives elected and assembled for the 
     sole purpose of passing on the terms of a proposed covenant. 
     See 4 The Founders' Constitution 647-58 (P. Kurland and R. 
     Lerner, eds.) (Univ. Chicago. Press: 1985). Thus, the 
     preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America 
     begins with ``We the People of the United States'' and 
     Article VII provides for ratification by state conventions 
     composed of representatives of the people elected solely for 
     that purpose. Sources of Our Liberties 408, 416, 418-21 (R. 
     Perry, ed.) (ABA Foundation, Chicago: 1978)
       Taking advantage of the universal appeal of the American 
     constitutional tradition, the preamble of the Charter of the 
     United Nations opens with ``We the peoples of the United 
     Nations.'' But, unlike the Constitution of the United States 
     of America, the Charter of the United Nations does not call 
     for ratification by conventions of the elected 
     representatives of the people of the signatory nations. 
     Rather, Article 110 of the Charter of the United Nations 
     provides for ratification ``by the signatory states in 
     accordance with their respective constitutional processes.'' 
     Such a ratification process would have been politically and 
     legally appropriate if the charter were a mere treaty. But 
     the Charter of the United Nations is not a treaty; it is a 
     constitution.
       First of all, Charter of the United Nations, executed as an 
     agreement in the name of the people, legally and politically 
     displaced previously binding agreements upon the signatory 
     nations. Article 103 provides that ``[i]n the event of a 
     conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United 
     Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under 
     any other international agreement, their obligations under 
     the present Charter shall prevail.'' Because the 1787 
     Constitution of the United States of America would displace 
     the previously adopted Articles of Confederation under which 
     the United States was being governed, the drafters recognized 
     that only if the elected representatives of the people at a 
     constitutional convention ratified the proposed constitution, 
     could it be lawfully adopted as a constitution. Otherwise, 
     the Constitution of the United States of America would be, 
     legally and politically, a treaty which could be altered by 
     any state's legislature as it saw fit. The Founders' 
     Constitution, supra, at 648-52.
       Second, an agreement made in the name of the people creates 
     a perpetual union, subject to dissolution only upon proof of 
     breach of covenant by the governing authorities whereupon the 
     people are entitled to reconstitute a new government on such 
     terms and for such duration as the people see fit. By 
     contrast, an agreement made in the name of nations creates 
     only a contractual obligation, subject to change when any 
     signatory nation decides that the obligation is no longer 
     advantageous or suitable. Thus, a treaty may be altered by 
     valid statute enacted by a signatory nation, but a 
     constitution may be altered only by a special amendatory 
     process provided for in that document. Id. at 652.
       Article V of the Constitution of the United States of 
     America spells out that amendment process, providing two 
     methods for adopting constitutional changes, neither of which 
     requires unanimous consent of the states of the Union. Had 
     the Constitution of the United States of America been a 
     treaty, such unanimous consent would have been required. 
     Similarly, the Charter of the United Nations may be amended 
     without the unanimous consent of its member states. According 
     to Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations, 
     amendments may be proposed by a vote of two-thirds of the 
     United Nations General Assembly and may become effective upon 
     ratification by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the 
     United Nations, including all the permanent members of the 
     United Nations Security Council. According to Article 109 of 
     the Charter of the United Nations, a special conference of 
     members of the United Nations may be called ``for the purpose 
     of reviewing the present Charter'' and any changes proposed 
     by the conference may ``take effect when ratified by two-
     thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the 
     permanent members of the Security Council.'' Once an 
     amendment to the Charter of the United Nations is adopted 
     then that amendment ``shall come into force for all Members 
     of the United Nations,'' even those nations who did not 
     ratify the amendment, just as an amendment to the 
     Constitution of the United States of America is effective in 
     all of the states, even though the legislature of a state or 
     a convention of a state refused to ratify. Such an amendment 
     process is totally foreign to a treaty. See Id., at 575-84.
       Third, the authority to enter into an agreement made in the 
     name of the people cannot be politically or legally limited 
     by any preexisting constitution, treaty, alliance, or 
     instructions. An agreement made in the name of a nation, 
     however, may not contradict the authority granted to the 
     governing powers and, thus, is so limited. For example, the 
     people ratified the Constitution of the United States of 
     America notwithstanding the fact that the constitutional 
     proposal had been made in disregard to specific instructions 
     to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to displace them. 
     See Sources of Our Liberties 399-403 (R. Perry ed.) 
     (American Bar Foundation: 1972). As George Mason observed 
     at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, ``Legislatures 
     have no power to ratify'' a plan changing the form of 
     government, only ``the people'' have such power. 4 The 
     Founders' Constitution, supra, at 651.
       As a direct consequence of this original power of the 
     people to constitute a new government, the Congress under the 
     new constitution was authorized to admit new states to join 
     the original 13 states without submitting the admission of 
     each state to the 13 original states. In like manner, the 
     Charter of the United Nations, forged in the name of the 
     ``peoples'' of those nations, established a new international 
     government with independent powers to admit to membership 
     whichever nations the United Nations governing authorities 
     chose without submitting such admissions to each individual 
     member nation for ratification. See Charter of the United 
     Nations, Article 4, Section 2. No treaty could legitimately 
     confer upon the United Nations General Assembly such powers 
     and remain within the legal and political definition of a 
     treaty.
       By invoking the name of the ``peoples of the United 
     Nations,'' then, the Charter of the United Nations envisioned 
     a new constitution creating a new civil order capable of not 
     only imposing obligations upon the subscribing nations, but 
     also imposing obligations directly upon the peoples of those 
     nations. In his special contribution to the United Nations 
     Human Development Report 2000, United Nations Secretary-
     General Annan made this claim crystal clear:
       Even though we are an organization of Member States, the 
     rights and ideals the United Nations exists to protect are 
     those of the peoples. No government has the right to hide 
     behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human 
     rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples. Human 
     Development Report 2000 31 (July 2000) [Emphasis added.]
       While no previous United Nations' secretary general has 
     been so bold, Annan's proclamation of universal jurisdiction 
     over ``human rights and fundamental freedoms'' simply 
     reflects the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations 
     which contemplated a future in which the United Nations 
     operates in perpetuity ``to save succeeding generations from 
     the scourge of ware . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental 
     human rights . . . to establish conditions under which 
     justice . . . can be maintained, and to promote social 
     progress and between standards of life in

[[Page H7699]]

     larger freedom.'' Such lofty goals and objectives are 
     comparable to those found in the preamble to the Constitution 
     of the United States of America: ``to . . . establish 
     Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common 
     defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings 
     of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . .''
       There is, however, one difference that must not be 
     overlooked. The Constitution of the United States of America 
     is a legitimate constitution, having been submitted directly 
     to the people for ratification by their representatives 
     elected and assembled solely for the purpose of passing on 
     the terms of that document. The Charter of the United 
     Nations, on the other hand, is an illegitimate constitution, 
     having only been submitted to the Untied States Senate for 
     ratification as a treaty. Thus, the Charter of the United 
     Nations, not being a treaty, cannot be made the supreme law 
     of our land by compliance with Article II, Section 2 of 
     Constitution of the United States of America. Therefore, the 
     Charter of the United Nations is neither politically nor 
     legally binding upon the United States of America or upon its 
     people.
       Even considering the Charter of the United Nations as a 
     treaty does not save it. The Charter of the United Nations 
     would still be constitutionally illegitimate and void, 
     because it transgresses the Constitution of the United States 
     of America in three major respects:
       (1) It unconstitutionally delegates the legislative power 
     of Congress to initiate war and the executive power of the 
     president to conduct war to the United Nation, a foreign 
     entity;
       (2) It unconstitutionally transfers the exclusive power to 
     originate revenue-raising measures from the United States 
     House of Representatives to the United Nations General 
     Assembly; and
       (3) It unconstitutionally robs the states of powers 
     reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution 
     of the United States of America.
       It is time for this Congress to return to these time-
     honored American principles of liberty; not to put their hope 
     in the promise of some international organization like the 
     United Nations which would replace the Constitution of the 
     United States of America with its Universal Declaration of 
     Human Rights, thereby compromising American liberties in 
     favor of government-imposed programs designed to enhance the 
     economic and social well-being of peoples all around the 
     world.

                          ____________________